This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

I'll ignore the balance of your "unbiased" take on the matter and focus on the bolded part. Can you tell me the process for a prosecutor in the US to indict someone? You seem to be implying that it's a matter of choice on the part of the prosecutor - that's not my understanding of the American system, but then I'm just a Canadian so I could be wrong.

1. In order to indict someone, the grand jury has to decide that the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor shows probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. While the prosecutor cannot choose the grand jury's decision, he can present the evidence in a way that pushes them to a certain conclusion - either by emphasizing certain witness testimonies, providing evidence that isn't necessary to confuse the jury, withholding some evidence and so on. Because prosecutor's have so much power in this sense, they usually get indictments whenever they want them. That's where the phrase, "you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to" comes from.

In addition, since you seem to know, how many other shootings by police officers in this prosecutor's jurisdiction have taken place over the past 23 years and how many were not presented to a grand jury, because clearly only those not presented to a grand jury can be held as solely the responsibility of this prosecutor, wouldn't you agree?

2. At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).

Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive

1. In order to indict someone, the grand jury has to decide that the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor shows probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. While the prosecutor cannot choose the grand jury's decision, he can present the evidence in a way that pushes them to a certain conclusion - either by emphasizing certain witness testimonies, providing evidence that isn't necessary to confuse the jury, withholding some evidence and so on. Because prosecutor's have so much power in this sense, they usually get indictments whenever they want them. That's where the phrase, "you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to" comes from.

2. At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).

1. As I said in a previous comment, I think it's commendable that a prosecutor would lay out all the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, so that the time of grand juries and courts isn't wasted first by only hearing half a story and then by having a trial where a conviction is impossible to get. From your words, you seem to feel that getting an indictment at all costs, even if there's no crime, is preferable - I disagree.

2. I certainly hope, if your assertions are true, that both the officers and the prosecutor were charged because perjury is a serious charge and shouldn't go unchallenged, at least in my view.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra

This is again your ability to provide what was asked for.

I'm not sure what your issue is, and I probably shouldn't butt in, but the sequence of events seems to be that Brown struggled with Wilson for Wilson's gun, in the car and vicinity of the car at which point the gun fired and Brown was injured. Following that, Brown started to flee and got about 150 feet from Wilson, trailing blood from his injury, and then started back towards Wilson when Wilson ordered him to stop. Brown didn't just stop in his place, 150 feet away, but started to return to where Wilson was and Wilson fired at him and the final, fatal shot happened when Brown was about 35 feet away.

That may not be your issue, but that's the evidence as I understand it.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

I'm not sure what your issue is, and I probably shouldn't butt in, but the sequence of events seems to be that Brown struggled with Wilson for Wilson's gun, in the car and vicinity of the car at which point the gun fired and Brown was injured. Following that, Brown started to flee and got about 150 feet from Wilson, trailing blood from his injury, and then started back towards Wilson when Wilson ordered him to stop. Brown didn't just stop in his place, 150 feet away, but started to return to where Wilson was and Wilson fired at him and the final, fatal shot happened when Brown was about 35 feet away.

That may not be your issue, but that's the evidence as I understand it.